High Court Calcutta held in CIT Vs Balampur Chini Mills Pvt Ltd that even if the assesse had voluntary disclosed its income by filing revised ROI though not detected by the revenue during scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3), penalty u/s 272(1)(c) would be levied.
West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (WBSEDCL) is covered by the exception Rule 6DD(b) of the IT Rules and as such no dis allowance under section 40A(3) of the Act can be made. Therefore, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
CIT Vs. S. Vijaya Kumar (Andhra Pradesh High Court) Individual items of centering and shuttering material used collectively in construction process constitute ‘Plant’ in terms of first proviso to section 32 (1), even if they can’t be used on stand alone basis.
In the case of M/s Sharma East India Hospitals & Medical Research Ltd vs. DCIT, ITAT Jaipur held that disallowance out of unverifiable purchases may be restricted to 15% following the consolidated order in the cases of Sh. Anuj Kumar Varshney and ors. Vs. ITO, ITA No. 187/JP/2012
ITAT held in ITO Vs General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd that the incentive offered by the BSNL to its franchisee was in the nature of trade discount not in the nature of commission because after the payment made by the franchisee to the BSNL all risks and rewards relate to the franchisee.
In the Case of ITO-TDS vs. BSNL, the Hyderabad Tribunal observed that the relationship between the BSNL and the franchisee was recognised by the CBDT by inserting third proviso to S.194H. The assessee being public sector undertaking stands on a different footing and the view taken by Delhi High Court
ITAT Ahmedabad held In the case of Amar Enterprise vs. ITO that in the present case, the AO has demonstrated that the assessee has continued business transactions with the concerned party. It is also not disputed that the assessee has received payments from the concerned party.
ITAT held in Manikanta Concerns Vs DCIT that if the assesse had claimed deduction of shortage in weight or quality at the time of purchase then it did not mean that assesse could not claim deduction of shortage in weight or quality at the time of sale.
In deciding the exemption u/s 54F in the case of Sri M.S. Lakshmana Rao vs. DCIT, Hyderabad Tribunal held that non-compliance to condition of depositing sale proceeds in capital gain account scheme as required u/s 54 will not be so fatal to debar the assessee from getting benefit of section 54F.
ITAT Hyderabad held in Shri M.S Lakshmana Rao Vs DCIT that if the assesse had not deposited the capital gain amount under the capital gain account scheme in bank then the assesse should not be barred of the exemption of sec 54
